^n  Official  ^fetp  of 

Hiqittor  jProl)itittton 
m tf)c  ^niteb  States! 


By  DR.  JAMES  M.  DORAN 

Commissioner  of  Prohibition  of  the  United  States 
of  America 


THE  WORLD  LEAGUE  AGAINST  ALCOHOLISM 
AMERICAN  ISSUE  PRESS 
WESTERVILLE.  OHIO.  U.  S.  A. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/viewofliquorprohOOdora 


AN  OFFICIAL  VIEW  OF  LIQUOR 
PROHIBITION  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES 

By  Dr.  James  M.  Doran 
Commissioner  of  Prohibition  of  the  United 
States  of  America* 


HE  many  years  of  effort  put  forth 
in  the  United  States  in  dealing 
with  the  subject  of  alcoholism 
finally  resulted  in  the  establish- 
ment of  a national  policy  through  consti- 
tutional change;  and  subsequent  statu- 
tory enactments  by  the  Congress  to  put 
into  effect  the  constitutional  prohibition 
of  intoxicating  liquors  for  beverage  pur- 
poses. 

The  policy  in  brief  encompasses  both 
the  prohibition  of  intoxicating  alcoholic 
liquors  for  beverage  purposes  and  the 
control  of  industrial  alcohol  and  liquors 
used  for  manufacturing,  medicinal,  and 
other  non-beverage  purposes;  the  policy 
with  respect  to  the  latter  being  one  of 
constructive  aid  to  industries  using  alco- 
hol and  liquors  for  legitimate  manufac- 
turing purposes. 

The  adoption  of  this  national  policy 
has  been  the  result  of  a slow,  steady  and 
logical  political  development,  working 
through  the  small  political  subdivisions 
and  finally  through  the  states  and  the 


•Address  before  the  International  Congress 
Against  Alcoholism,  Antwerp,  August  20-25, 
1928,  which  Dr.  Doran  attended  as  an  ofiBcial 
del^ate  from  the  United  States. 

[31 


national  Congress  itself.  Political  action 
has  been  coincident  with  the  scientific 
and  industrial  development  of  the  past 
forty  years  that  has  brought  about  such 
radical  changes  in  the  occupations  and 
habits  of  the  people.  This  scientific  and 
mechanical  advance  has  brought  into 
sharp  outline  a steadily  increasing  con- 
sciousness of  the  unsocial  aspects  of  bev- 
erage alcohol. 

During  the  period  in  which  this  na- 
tional policy  was  forming  we  witnessed 
three  distinct  lines  of  activity.  The  moral 
forces,  supplemented  by  the  social  work- 
ers, labored  continuously  for  ameliora- 
tion of  social  conditions  by  urging  the 
complete  elimination  of  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  beverage  liquors.  Next,  the 
industrialist  and  economist,  noting  the 
inefficiency  and  positive  danger  attend- 
ant upon  the  use  of  beverage  liquor  by 
the  individual  in  industry,  with  the  re- 
sulting injury  to  the  individual,  and  losses 
to  the  worker’s  associates  and  family, 
the  net  result  being  a load  on  industry 
with  a lowering  of  the  standard  of  living 
on  the  part  of  all  dependent  on  the  par- 
ticular industry,  took  aggressive  steps  to 
eliminate  the  use  of  intoxicants  by  indi- 
vidual employees.  Common  carriers,  pub- 
lic service  corporations  and  manufactur- 
ing corporations  where  fine  mechanical 
control  was  essential  took  steps  to  elimi- 
nate the  individual  who  used  intoxicat- 
ing liquor.  Finally  the  scientist,  and  in 
that  category  we  would  particularly 
mention  the  pharmacologist  and  the 
chemist,  worked  in  two  distinct  fields. 
The  former  determined  that  alcohol  was 
[4] 


distinctly  a depressant  and  acted  direct- 
ly on  the  nerve  centers  controlling  co- 
ordination of  actions.  The  latter  found 
that  alcohol  could  be  made  useful  to  the 
race  in  hundreds  of  processes  and  prod- 
ucts, thereby  showing  the  way  in  which 
the  compound  ethyl  alcohol  might  be 
employed  as  a constructive  aid  to  the 
race  rather  than  as  a destructive  agent. 

All  of  these  moral,  social,  economic  and 
scientific  forces  contributed  to  the  steady 
and  logical  political  action  by  which  and 
through  which  the  State  acted  and 
brought  into  existence  our  present  body 
of  constitutional  and  statute  law  com- 
monly referred  to  as  National  Prohibi- 
tion. 

Eight  and  one-half  years  are  a com- 
paratively short  time  in  which  to  survey 
and  accurately  assess  the  good  and  bad 
features  resulting  from  the  adoption  of 
such  a broad  national  policy  intimately 
affecting  all  the  people  as  it  does,  but  the 
general  result  thus  far  has  been  whole- 
some and  beneficial.  The  Eighteenth 
Amendment  to  our  Constitution  con- 
ferred concurrent  power  on  both  the 
States  and  the  Federal  Government  to 
enforce  its  provisions.  Under  our  theory 
of  government  the  States  exercise  the 
maximum  police  powers  and,  hence,  the 
local  enforcement  of  prohibition  should 
rest  largely  on  the  State.  The  Federal 
Government  has  proceeded  to  build  up  a 
national  organization  primarily  for  the 
purpose  of  enforcing  the  criminal  pro- 
visions of  the  National  Prohibition  Act 
through  the  Federal  courts.  The  Federal 
force  directs  its  attention  largely  to  vio- 
[5] 


lations  relating  to  sources  of  supply,  in- 
terstate violations  and  international  vio- 
lations. While  it  has  jurisdiction  with 
respect  to  all  violations,  large  and  small, 
it  naturally  directs  its  resources  along 
the  lines  of  major  operations.  The  Fed- 
eral organization  also  administers  the 
sections  of  the  law  dealing  with  the  per- 
missible use  of  alcohol  and  liquors  for 
manufacturing,  medicinal  and  other 
non-beverage  purposes.  Federal  taxes 
are  still  levied  on  alcohol  and  liquors 
when  withdrawn  in  a pure  state  for  me- 
dicinal and  certain  commercial  non-bev- 
erage purposes.  The  amount  of  taxes 
collected  from  this  source  last  year  was 
$11,396,173.47. 

We  have  at  the  present  time  a Federal 
force  of  about  3,800  men  in  the  various 
branches  of  the  Bureau  of  Prohibition. 
This  force  is  employed  solely  on  internal 
work.  As  illustrative  of  the  volume  of 
this  work  I would  point  out  that  during 
the  past  year  40,709  prosecutions  were 
commenced  in  the  Federal  courts,  result- 
ing in  31,717  convictions  and  949  acquit- 
tals. The  fines  and  penalties  imposed 
were  $5,716,708.  The  Bureau  of  Prohibi- 
tion issues  permits  to  and  supervises  the 
activities  of  about  160,000  permit  holders 
of  all  classes.  This  includes  the  manu- 
facturer of  alcohol,  the  denaturer,  the  in- 
dustrial user,  the  pharmacist,  the  hospi- 
tal, the  physician  and  numerous  other 
miscellaneous  permit  holders. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  quote  statisti- 
cal matter,  but  the  above  figures  illus- 
trate the  activity  of  the  United  States 
[6] 


Government  in  the  internal  administra- 
tion of  the  prohibition  laws. 

The  United  States  Coast  Guard,  the 
Bureau  of  Customs  and  the  Bureau  of 
Prohibition  are  coordinate  services  in  the 
Department  of  the  Treasury.  The  Coast 
Guard  patrols  the  deep  waters  around 
the  United  States,  using  several  hundred 
vessels,  large  and  small,  and  a personnel 
of  11,000  men  in  the  carrying  out  of  their 
function  which  is  the  saving  of  life  and 
property  at  sea  and  the  prevention  of 
introduction  of  illegal  merchandise  and 
aliens  into  the  United  States.  The  Bu- 
reau of  Customs  patrols  the  land  borders 
and  guards  all  ports  of  entry.  They  col- 
lect the  revenue  from  tariff  and  prevent 
the  introduction  of  unlawful  and  untax- 
paid  merchandise  into  the  United  States. 
You  will  see,  therefore,  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  through  the 
Treasury  Department,  employs  three  co- 
ordinate services  in  the  enforcement  of 
the  constitutional  provisions  relating  to 
the  liquor  traffic,  namely,  the  Coast 
Guard  at  sea,  the  Customs  on  the  land 
and  water  borders,  and  the  Bureau  of 
Prohibition  internally. 

Many  superficial  observations  and  as- 
sertions have  been  made  with  respect  to 
the  operation  of  the  prohibition  policy  in 
the  United  States.  In  discussing  the  net 
results  observable  thus  far  it  is  well  that 
we  use  great  care  in  properly  assessing 
the  available  data  and  not  generalize 
from  two  or  three  specific  facts.  Very 
few  people  who  have  written  at  length 
on  the  effect  of  prohibition  in  the  United 
States  have  assembled  their  data  in  a 
[73 


scientific  manner  where  comparison  ob- 
servations can  be  made.  Pickett  of  Wash- 
ington has  assembled  some  very  good 
material,  however,  on  mortality,  deaths 
from  alcoholism  and  arrests  for  intoxi- 
cation and  crimes  attributable  to  the  use 
of  intoxicants.  Fisher,  of  Yale  Univer- 
sity, has  compiled  social  and  economic 
data  and  has  drawn  his  conclusions  from 
that  data.  Feldman,  of  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege, has  likewise  assembled  economic 
and  industrial  data  and  commented 
thereon.  The  conclusions  of  these  men, 
who  have  devoted  considerable  study  to 
this  carefully  compiled  data,  have  been 
that  the  benefits  of  prohibition  on  the 
national  life  are  real  and  determinable. 
Entirely  outside  of  the  observation  of  the 
economist  have  been  the  statements  of 
the  leading  social  workers  relative  to  the 
beneficial  effects  of  prohibition  on  the 
social  lives  of  the  people.  That  there  has 
been  a substantial  change  in  the  daily 
lives  of  the  people  is  a matter  of  com- 
mon observation,  the  final  conclusion  be- 
ing that  the  effect  of  this  national  policy 
has  been  most  salutary. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States 
is  proceeding  earnestly  and  in  good  faith 
with  all  available  resources  to  bring 
about  the  maximum  degree  of  enforce- 
ment of  the  criminal  law.  It  is  likewise 
earnestly  endeavoring  to  aid  all  indus- 
tries using  alcohol  for  manufacturing 
and  other  non-beverage  purposes,  and  in 
Uie  latter  endeavor  it  has  the  active  co- 
operation of  the  organized  industries  af- 
fected. The  Bureau  of  Prohibition  has 
an  unofficial  Industrial  Advisory  Council 
[8] 


composed  of  twelve  leading  scientists 
and  industrialists  who  confer  and  advise 
with  us  on  joint  problems,  and  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  law  is  directed  along 
cooperative  and  constructive  lines.  The 
experience  of  the  United  States  of  the 
last  eight  years  shows  that  it  is  entirely 
possible  to  have  a sound  and  healthy 
chemical  industry  in  which  alcohol  is  an 
essential  material,  and  prohibition  of 
beverage  liquor  at  the  same  time. 

The  earnest  effort  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  in  enforcing  its 
laws  makes  it  not  inappropriate  to  sug- 
gest that  other  nations  cooperate  with 
the  United  States  to  combat  the  inter- 
national illicit  traffic  in  liquor.  The  need 
for  such  an  arrangement  is  becoming  in- 
creasingly apparent.  We  hope  that  the 
future  will  bring  about  stronger  coopera- 
tive action  between  nations  in  the  sup- 
pression of  this  illicit  traffic,  in  order  to 
permit  prohibition  countries  to  combat 
alcoholism  by  effective  action  developed 
on  a wide  basis,  and  so  that  those  coun- 
tries may  be  in  a position  to  deal  solely 
with  an  internal  problem,  instead  of  be- 
ing compelled  to  exert  tremendous  ef- 
forts to  combat  an  international  illicit 
liquor  traffic  which  uses  the  ports  of 
many  foreign  nations  and  seeks  the  pro- 
tection of  the  flags  of  those  nations  to 
cover  illegal  acts. 

At  the  present  time  there  are  at  least 
twenty-five  ports  in  foreign  countries 
used  almost  exclusively  as  bases  for 
smuggling  operations  to  the  United 
States. 

I seize  this  opportunity  to  suggest  a 
[9] 


very  simple  solution  to  this  nefarious  in- 
ternational traffic.  If  the  appropriate 
governments  would  require  the  produc- 
tion of  a duly  authenticated  landing  cer- 
tificate, showing  that  liquor  exported  was 
actually  discharged  at  the  port  for  which 
the  vessel  cleared,  it  would  clearly  dis- 
tinguish legitimate  trade  from  illicit 
traffic,  and  drive  the  latter  from  the  so- 
ciety of  nations. 

I might  say  that  the  Government  of 
Norway  has  taken  a noteworthy  step  in 
eliminating  smuggling  by  Norwegian  ves- 
sels, which  should  be  followed  by  other 
nations. 

We  all  desire  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
the  people,  the  basic  purpose  for  which 
government  exists,  and  in  no  field  can 
greater  good  be  accomplished  than  in 
lessening  the  evils  of  alcoholism. 


(PBINTBD  IN  THE  U.  8.  A.) 

[10] 


